Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2012 23:07 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Two weeks ago, my grandmother passed away - the last grandparent I had left. As those of you with experience in dealing with deceased family members know, the funeral is only the start; the next part is taking care of the deceased's affairs, which includes going through all their belongings to determine what to do with them. I took care of my grandmother's extensive book collection, and while doing so, I hit something that fascinated me to no end: a six-volume Christian Encyclopaedia from 1956. In it, I found something I just had to share with OSNews.
Thread beginning with comment 521458
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment on Religion and Evolution
by reez on Sat 9th Jun 2012 17:13 UTC
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

I looked up "Evolution", and to my surprise, I was completely and utterly wrong - the topic was described in great scientific detail, explaining how evolution works, who contributed to the subject, and some of the aspects of it that still required further study because scientists didn't yet understand them fully (we're talking 1956, after all). No dogmas, no ridicule, no disparaging words or other forms of negativity. In fact, it could've come from any strictly secular science book and it'd be perfectly acceptable.


Well all this science vs religion nonsense is a new thing. Gregor Mendel for example was monk and even though we Charles Darwin is the father of the evolution theory Mendel discovered how inheritance works and described it in great detail.

People somehow started to mix up science with believe. There are a lot of scientists that are theist, the Vatican even has their own observatory and they add a lot to science.

One also shouldn't mix up Christianity with Creationism. There are a lot things that go wrong with church and I don't believe in a god either, but saying that someone who does isn't able to do science is just completely wrong.

It even goes further than that. Saying there is no god without proving it is from a scientific point of view just as wrong as stating their is one without proving it.

Also people, scientist, priest or both are in general wrong about most of the stuff they find out, even if they consider them proven.

Basing your moral decision on any of these, at least for me doesn't sound rational (if moral decisions can be rational at all).


Nevertheless. Great article!
(and sorry about your loss)

Reply Score: 3

Modafinil Member since:
2012-04-28

Well all this science vs religion nonsense is a new thing. Gregor Mendel for example was monk and even though we Charles Darwin is the father of the evolution theory Mendel discovered how inheritance works and described it in great detail.


~700 years prior to Mendel: http://www.osnews.com/thread?521459

Reply Parent Score: 1

reez Member since:
2006-06-28

"Well all this science vs religion nonsense is a new thing. Gregor Mendel for example was monk and even though we Charles Darwin is the father of the evolution theory Mendel discovered how inheritance works and described it in great detail.


~700 years prior to Mendel: http://www.osnews.com/thread?521459
"
Nice example. Thanks!

And also think that for most of the time monks were the scientists. They were the ones able to read, the ones that cared about books, had libraries and even did math.

Philosophy and I am not talking about the "moral of the bible" (if you can call it like that) is also something that's heavily related to religious people in past time. There were witch burnings and book burnings (even though they cared for libraries) and lots of bad things, but these were things that usually have been done by people that had a grief for power and not by monks for example. One simply has to distinguish between believers and people that are like (or even are) populist and corrupt politicians. Acting like every priest is a rapist, hates women/homosexuals and just is out for the money is like saying every German is a Nazi, every mathematician is a pale, emotionless, asocial outsider, every American is gun fanatic, arch conservative, war loving capitalist with tons of American flags or every black person is a drug dealer. It's simply far from true.

What's really bad, no matter what is when people blindly follow someone. That does never work out in a good way, but happens everywhere. Religion caused people to do the right thing just like it caused people to do the exact opposite. I mean there are people questioning the church (which also isn't that big evil thing), because they actually read the bible and thought about their religion. People did a lot of stupid things in the name of freedom, democracy and many other things, but hey that's what people sometimes to. Doing shit and learning from it is what brought us this far and it's what scientific research is mostly based on.

Oh and if someone is wrong it doesn't mean you are right. Maybe it's also just becoming aware of being wrong most of the time. At least I am, so please folks don't burn me if I am again. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

I liked your post, but have two comments to make:

Well all this science vs religion nonsense is a new thing.


The truth is it's all about power and depends on who's in charge at the time. The catholic church, for example, has fought science many times in the past, but has supported it many times as well. Like you said, many scientists were people of the church. Most of the problems arise when science claims that something that the church has been telling for centuries is wrong. The aftermath depends on those in power.

It even goes further than that. Saying there is no god without proving it is from a scientific point of view just as wrong as stating their is one without proving it.


Not really. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that god exists. Non believers don't really have to prove anything since, by default, god doesn't exist, just like the flying spaghetti monster.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22


Not really. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that god exists. Non believers don't really have to prove anything since, by default, god doesn't exist, just like the flying spaghetti monster.


I find this argument very counter-scientific.

If you say God exists but provide no supporting evidence, I am scientifically entitled to be unconvinced.

If you say God does not exist, but provide no evidence, I am scientifically entitled to ignore you.

The burden of proof lies with anyone claiming specific knowledge. The default position should be neutrality (ie. we do not know).

Think of the world before the discovery of the Americas. Were the people who said there was nothing west of Europe correct by default? No. The only sensible scientific position was that it was not something that had been demonstrated either way through direct experience. In that case, it turns out that the people that believed that nothing was out there were wrong. But neither position was "correct" scientifically speaking.

Now, many people probably "believed" something about what was out there. My own feeling is that this is fine until science has something to say about it.

The history of science is full of scientistists that strongly believed things later shown to be false. Einstein for example believed that the universe was static (not expanding) and that quantum theory was wrong (God does not play dice with the universe). These were philosophical positions which were perfectly fine, right up until science proved him wrong.

Science dictates what you should believe AFTER the evidence has been presented. It provides no real guidance before then.

Reply Parent Score: 2

frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that god exists. Non believers don't really have to prove anything since, by default, god doesn't exist, just like the flying spaghetti monster.

Communicable knowledge has been found to come in two flavours: One flavour is knowledge that is not falsifiable and the other one is falsifiable. The latter one is called science.

The statement "god exists" is not falsifiable.
The statement "god doesn't exist" is not falsifiable.

We call people who are aware of these facts "agnostics". It's a matter of knowing the limits of one's knowledge.

Reply Parent Score: 1